On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:52:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software". It's the > Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be > literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue > about things which are not *Software*. More ground already covered. If it's not *Software* then either, 1) We must treat it as such, or; 2) We have no mandate to deal with it at all. Please review the Social Contract. > > Let me guess. You're one of the people who didn't read the thread > > before replying! > > Huh? You and I still disagree about the point; if you *must* have a > rigid guideline, then maybe we can work one out, but Anthony is well > within his rights to argue that a qualitative description is > adequate. That question is *not* somehow closed so that people > joining the conversation now can't revisit it. And nowhere did I imply thus. I asked him to read the thread, which he clearly hadn't. > > It's probably a good idea to avoid shitting on people for making an > > effort to be clear by using a little colloquial grease. Specific > > suggestions for clarification of my existing wording are welcome. > > Contrived objections to my proposals are not. > > Why are contrived objections to your proposals not allowed, but > contrived objections to the GFDL are just fine?? I'm sorry, but I cannot see how see my attempt to eluicidate a point is in any way analogous to an exigesis of the GNU FDL, which is a software license. If Anthony, or you, doesn't like my explanation of point 3), you can simply ignore it. What's up for consideration is the proposal itself. I find it endlessly fascinating that, no matter how much trouble one goes to to distinguish normative pieces of a proposal from descriptive ones, people manage to conflate the two. Ironically, this is probably one reason why Invariant Sections under the GNU FDL could be considered a bad idea. Please feel free to mentally insert ********************************************************************* THE INDENTED TEXT IS FOR EXPLANATION PURPOSES ONLY, IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE NORMATIVE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL; IT IS JUST PRESENT AS FODDER FOR EXPLANATORY FOOTNOTES IN ANY ADOPTED VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL. ANTHONY TOWNS, THOMAS BUSHNELL, THIS MEANS YOU! ********************************************************************* before the indented explanations of each clause of my proposal. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure branden@debian.org | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpB9hajKWNNM.pgp
Description: PGP signature